Friday, July 25. 2008
The majority of Germans support Barack Obama for the US presidency, not because they believe he will radically change US policy, but because he is expected to return it to the familiar pre-Bush trajectory. This is the conclusion from my colleague Ben Heine over at atlantic-community.org
Ben and I have interviewed German, American and other attendees of the Obama rally in Berlin yesterday. We have asked some of the questions that you suggested on Atlantic Review. Here's our video with their responses:
What do you think of the opinions expressed by the interviewees?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Pat Patterson - #1 - 2008-07-25 21:31 -
Jeez, what a coincidence that Mr. Heine found a completely disinterested listener that just happened to be wearing a Fulbright t-shirt! Not what are the odds?
Joerg - Atlantic Review - #1.1 - 2008-07-25 21:42 -
Nope, he was cool. I just had to cut so much good material. I figured he is already making a statement with the cowboy hat and Fulbright T-shirt. And that I could concentrate on others. The woman by his side is a Fulbrighter as well.
Anonymous - #1.1.1 - 2008-07-26 20:24 -
The cowboy is a German Fulbrighter
Joe Noory - #2 - 2008-07-26 02:45 -
Thanks, that was great. It's good to know that we really won't be missing out on anything when the next president fails to please 90% of these people.
John in Michigan, USA - #3 - 2008-07-26 03:16 -
Those were some excellent interviews. Citizen journalism rocks! --- One of the depressing things I keep hearing is "it can't get any worse" than the current President. This to me is silly. The entire world is worried about the Iranian bomb, and their genocidal, apocalyptic rhetoric. Although it is difficult to predict, it is entirely possible that Iran and Israel will soon be as close to a major nuclear exchange as were the US and the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Of course there are different ideas about how to avoid that, and we are not there yet. Meanwhile, India and Pakistan are nuclear powers that have had acute, low level conflict for decades. Things seem stable for now, but that could change. Worse, if a future nuclear exchange doesn't begin here, it could easily spread to here. Also meanwhile, there have been no more 9-11's, 7-7's, or 3-11's. That could change too, but so far, things have improved since those dark days. I am not saying this necessarily to defend Bush. I am just disturbed by the lack of awareness as to the world situation revealed by statements like "it can't get any worse". Things could easily be much, much, much worse.
SC - #4 - 2008-07-26 05:03 -
"The majority of Germans support Barrack Obama for the US presidency, not because they believe he will radically change US policy, but because he is expected to return it to the familiar pre-Bush trajectory." So let me get this straight, Joerg: Your colleague Ben Heine implies that the German public regards the foreign policy of the current US administration post 9/11 as something less than a radical change in US foreign policy from the prior two administrations. Well, that would be news; but how else would one interpret the sentence quoted. Do you agree with this assessment of the views of the German public? As a member of that public, would you characterize the change in US foreign policy under the current Bush administration as a less than radical change from, say, the Clinton administration?
John in Michigan, USA - #5 - 2008-07-26 06:29 -
Joe Noory - #6 - 2008-07-26 12:31 -
It's a new age of the new and improved intellectualism! "Continuity" and "Change" have now been declared to be the EXACT SAME THING! The cadres have spoken!
John in Michigan, USA - #6.1 - 2008-07-30 23:48 -
Good point. That is a little creepy! For additional, possible creepiness, have you seen [url=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/193417.php]LOLz: Obama = Lenin[/url]? N.B. [url=http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lolz]LOLz[/url] in this context means something like "just for laughs" so don't have a cow, David. Any experts on German poster art or street art care to comment?
Joerg - Atlantic Review - #7 - 2008-07-26 15:07 -
@ SC and Joe I got the impression yesterday that many Germans hope that transatlantic relations will return to what they used to be. Obviously, that is not going to happen. It can't happen. So, we can draw to conclusions: A negative one and a positive one: a) Many folks have unrealistic expectations. (I wrote "many," not "most," because many are also skeptical of Obama, and some even expressed support for McCain.) b) Many Germans are optimistic and hopeful about transatlantic relations, i.e. they have not given up on the America they love. They blame Bush, not America. Yeah, that's not fair to Bush, but the good news -- also for Republicans -- is that you can win back the hearts and minds of many Germans. Many of us want to love America again. They don't want a divorce from America, but consider the nearly 8 years of Bush as just a phase that will pass away soon. Does this make sense? Do you know understand what was meant with "change" and "continuity"? According to popular opinion: [b]The two Bush administrations was the change from how transatlantic relations are supposed to be.[/b] Obama will undo this change and return the quality of the transatlantic relationship to how it used to be and is supposed to be. [b]He will reestablish continuity.[/b]
Pat Patterson - #7.1 - 2008-07-26 17:21 -
The "two Bush administrations?" Does that mean that the Germans want to split the country in two again? It wasn't a member of the bush family that threatened nuclear war over Soviet demands in 1961. If the elder Bush hadn't backed Ch. Kohl just what then would have happened to Germany? What exactly are the Germans so upset about considering they have a bare minimum of troops in Afghanistan with no consequences from the US, their trade to the US is generally unimpeded and near as I can tell they haven't been forced to do anything, except complain and pine for some imagined state of grace between the two countries?
Joerg - Atlantic Review - #7.1.1 - 2008-07-26 19:06 -
I had hoped it was obvious that I was referring to the last two George W. Bush administrations. Does not the term "administration" also refer to the four years between presidential elections?
Pat Patterson - #18.104.22.168 - 2008-07-26 19:25 -
Actually no, an administration is simply a reference to the term in office of a particular president. Thus the eight years of Pres. Clinton and Pres. Bush would be referred to as an administration. While the truncated term of Pres. Ford, and the one terms of Pres. Carter and Pres. Bush are also referred to as an administration. Two administrations would refer to two different presidents. But I'm still left wondering exactly what Germany has been forced to do that disturbed their comity and the continuity of their lives and a transatlantic relationship? Invade Chechnya, threaten to cut off oil and natural gas supplies or withdraw from KFOR? I mean let's be honest in that except for some strenuous hyperventiliating the only thing the US has done to legitimately upset Germany is the new CAFE standards that Porsche might not be able to pass for another twenty years, hybrid Cayennes or not!
Joerg - Atlantic Review - #22.214.171.124.1 - 2008-07-26 20:18 -
Thanks for the explanation re "administration"! I learned something. Again! [i]But I'm still left wondering exactly what Germany has been forced to do that disturbed their comity and the continuity of their lives and a transatlantic relationship?[/i] I got your point, but lack the time for an answer. It is a complicated issue, I believe. [b]Perhaps someone else can answer your question.[/b] That would be great.
John in Michigan, USA - #126.96.36.199.1.1 - 2008-07-27 03:22 -
A better way to refer to the last 4 years of the Bush administration is the 2nd term of the Bush administration. Adding to the fun, "term" can mean "word" as in terms of endearment (what Germany wants from Obama or McCain) or it can mean "period of time" as in term in prison (what Europe wants for Bush) :-) You probably knew that already.
SC - #7.2 - 2008-07-27 04:51 -
Joerg: Yes, it makes sense. Your point is that the current Bush administration is seen, broadly, as an historical aberration. In this sense then people see or equate "change" with return to what they see as past policy continuum. Nevertheless, I believe that a return to the policy principles of prior administrations would be a radical change for this reason, most notably: the doctrine of unilateral preemptive war is now in play as it really had not been in previous administrations since 1945. "The horse has left the barn", "the genie is out of the bottle": pick your favorite phrase here. I don't think Obama has disowned it: perhaps other participants here have knowledge of whether he has or hasn't. I rather expect that neither candidate has spoken definitively to this for the simple reason that the implied threat may be useful to those concerned with strategic deterrence. There appears to be a significant discussion taking place in policy circles, particularly in the Pentagon, about the elements of deterrence doctrine in an environment of nuclear proliferation. Moreover, the US has had one presidential election in which this very issue was considered and the country expressed itself; the point being that a large number of people, while dissatisfied with operations in Iraq, seem more comfortable than most realize, or at least acknowledge, with the general principal of preemption and unilateral action. While this may seem new, it really isn't and, I think, can be taken as a more extreme manifestation of longer trends. I hate to be an old bore about history, but there is plenty in America's to suggest that this is anything but new. However, boldly stated as policy this is something more in keeping with the 19th than the 20th century, and thus is consistent with deep currents in US history and at the same time is much at odds with many of the trends and international institutions created in the last half of the twentieth century supported by successive US administrations and apparently loved by Europeans. But these very same trends and institutions, for reasons much discussed in this community, have over my reasonably long life proven less than effective and seem to enjoy an ever decreasing level of American public support: I seriously doubt that either Obama or McCain will change that despite campaign rhetoric or the hopes of others. So I'm inclined to favor your first assessment, in particular. As for the second, with all due respect, the America that Germans thought they knew and loved has probably been strongly influenced their own imaginings and yearnings - as it always has been for much of humanity, I suspect, and I write this with a bit of knowledge and experience. This is not intended to be dismissive, but it something to bear in mind going forward.
Pat Patterson - #7.2.1 - 2008-07-27 06:34 -
The US has sent soldiers and Marines into Korea before UN approval, as well as without consultation with Germany or Europe into Lebanon, Libya, Grenada, Haiti, Panama, the Dominican Republic and even sponsoring an invasion of Cuba. As well as leaving our fingerprints all over covert actions in Guatemala, Poland, Iran, Chile, Colombia, Afghanistan, Tibet, etc. These are all examples of unilateral action on the part of the US and it just seems that Europe wants to get into the Wayback Machine. Again I might ask what Golden Age does Europe imagine they want to return to especially if they seem to think that Pres. Bush represents an outlier of American foreign policy rather than business as usual?
Kevin Sampson - #7.3 - 2008-07-28 05:54 -
John in Michigan, USA - #7.4 - 2008-07-30 23:34 -
Joerg, When yearning for continuity, Europeans need to keep in mind that normally, the US electorate is pretty unconcerned with foreign policy. The break in continuity on this point was not the election of Bush in 2000, it was 9-11. This break took US foreign policy out of the hands of the mandarins at the State Department with whom some Europeans are more comfortable, and into the hands of the politicians, who can be unpredictable and appallingly populist. I don't think you are calling for our foreign policy to revert to its pre-9-11 mode, and even if you were, it isn't likely to happen. So, continuity would mean, in effect, Americans revert to not caring much about foreign policy, and our foreign policy goes on auto-pilot. However, the mandarins don't really have the mandate for big changes to existing, post-9-11 policies. So this means no major changes to the visa requirements, travel restrictions, limits on cultural exchange, and all the other stuff that came out of the GWOT that is causing tension in the trans-Atlantic relationship. While auto-pilot wouldn't support any more big adventures like Iraq, it would permit smaller adventures like Somalia or Clinton's various bombing runs, which caused a great deal of resentment in the Islamic world and, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, played right in to bin Laden's "paper tiger" rhetoric. Finally, if Bush is an aberration, Reagan's change from detente to confrontation was even more so. Worse, it was Reagan's initiative, and not an unforeseen event, that drove the change. Almost every European complaint about Bush sounds familiar to someone like me who became politically aware during the 80's. Yet the Regan "aberration" worked out fantastically well for Europe, especially Germany. Continuity may not be all that you hope it to be.
Joerg - Atlantic Review - #7.4.1 - 2008-07-31 10:27 -
"I don't think you are calling for our foreign policy to revert to its pre-9-11 mode" You are correct. "Continuity may not be all that you hope it to be." I am just writing about the impression I got from talking to Germans. My comments on popular opinion are here: [url]http://atlanticreview.org/archives/1131-What-Germans-Think-of-Barack-Obama-Continuity-We-Can-Believe-In.html#c15338[/url]
Fuchur - #8 - 2008-07-26 15:07 -
Thanks, the interviews were very interesting. Seems that the people have quite reasonable views on Obama and on what to expect from him.
Joerg - Atlantic Review - #9 - 2008-07-26 15:21 -
Helmut Metzner from the Liberal Democrats has critized the German media coverage of the Obama speech. Suggestive and stupid questions, journalists wearing Obama stickers etc. See his blog in German:; [url]http://muntermachermetzner.de/2008/07/25/war-was/[/url] He also links to the video interview that we did with him. We are the only media outlet he does not criticize in his blog post. Well, he does not praise us either... Anybody want to translate his blog post? Or write a guest blog post about the German media coverage of Obama?
John in Michigan, USA - #9.1 - 2008-07-26 16:33 -
Zyme - #9.1.2 - 2008-07-26 20:00 -
The term "seducible" is misunderstood here I believe. Schmidt was probably thinking about the political developments after 1933 more than the role of the military. As regards "seducible" today - well on the one hand it sure is possible to draw large amounts of the german people to one direction when the time is right. This could be witnessed at the massive public identification with our nation in both the world championship in 2006 and the euro championship this year. In the right moment it almost seems like somebody pushed the right button and all (at least the younger ones) wear the same clothes, sing the same songs and enjoy doing the same things in a collective environment. The more taking part, the better. On the other hand, clearly none of our current leading politicians has even the slightest ability to push that button. So, little to worry here.
David - #9.2 - 2008-07-26 23:13 -
I was going to translate Metzner's post until I actually read it. Can't think of a good English word for "menschenverachtend" (dripping with contempt for people). No wonder the German voters have kicked the FDP out of any governing coalition. And why do they still have a "D" in their name? Replace it with an "M" - Freie Maerkte Partei.
Zyme - #9.2.1 - 2008-07-26 23:44 -
Don't you know the name of the former Eastern German State ? It was "German Democratic Republic". Anymore questions on this subject?
John in Michigan, USA - #9.2.2 - 2008-07-27 03:35 -
David, Are you using "menschenverachtend" to describe Metzner's post? To describe Schmidt's remarks? Or does it refer to your reaction to their words?
Fuchur - #9.2.3 - 2008-07-28 10:50 -
What?? I hope this is just a language problem, but since your German seems to be excellent, I can't really believe this. "Menschenverachtend" is something you'd use for the likes of Stalin or Hitler. Using it here, for someone who just doesn't share your political ideas, is way out of line and extremely poor style. It surprises me, btw., that you apparently would consider a "free market party" as something bad and anti-democratic. FDP supporters (and I consider myself to be one) indeed vouch for freedom in every aspect of life, economy included. We do this not out of contempt for people, but because we believe in human dignity.
John in Michigan, USA - #10 - 2008-07-26 15:32 -
David, [url=http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=439d9642-fe10-49ff-bce0-b2aac6607972]here is some real racism for you to condemn[/url]. You're welcome.
John in Michigan, USA - #10.1 - 2008-07-27 03:42 -
Still waiting. Normally you're very quick on this. Cat got your tongue?
John in Michigan, USA - #11 - 2008-07-26 15:46 -
John in Michigan, USA - #13.1 - 2008-07-27 16:42 -
Christopher, Thanks for writing. I am impressed with your knowledge of the US political scene. "So as civil liberties presently do not have the support of the majority" I disagree. In the US, civil liberties remain very popular, it is only the ACLU that has lost popularity. When 9-11 came, I had been on the ACLU mailing list for some time, and the first, post 9-11 communication from the ACLU that I remember was an appeal to prevent a crackdown on, of all things, illegal immigrants! Over the following months and years it became clear the ACLU were out of touch. They had completely misjudged both the mood of the country and the seriousness of 9-11. They had no plan or vision for how to defend civil liberties in time of war. Their rhetoric became so shrill and sensational in tone, so over-the-top, I found it hard to take them seriously, even though I know they have many serious civil libertarians in their ranks. [i]The ACLU seemed all too comfortable creating their own little climate of fear, and no good can come of that.[/i] And yet, with the country fearful and the ACLU disoriented, WW II style mass internment was never seriously considered. TIA and similar programs were killed, in most cases before they even entered the proof-of-concept stage. The fear of government power, and the desire for freedom over the promise of security, remains embedded deep in the American soul, and cannot easily be suppressed. The Patriot Act passed only on condition that it be renewed every year. FISA, even in its current form, puts the US head and shoulders above most countries (outside of Western Europe) who do not accept or enforce any meaningful limitations on their ability to spy outside of their borders, or on national security exceptions within their borders. Self-confident civil libertarians understand that during times of war, certain limits are inevitable and can even serve to protect civil liberties in the long run. The trick is to limit the emergency measures in such a way that it is easier to modify or repeal them once the emergency is passed. [i]Now that 'stateless terrorism' appears to have reverted to a chronic problem, rather than an emergency, it is indeed appropriate to revisit all emergency measures[/i]. Also, I hope the ACLU will give serious thought as to their plan of action, should another emergency occur. The ACLU is still useful to civil libertarians because of their organizational resources. However, I fear the ACLU remains too focused on a few hot-button issues that are popular on the left. As a result, they don't see the big picture, and they fail to speak to the legitimate concerns of civil libertarians on the right (hate speech/speech codes, multicultural exceptions to fundamental rights, etc.) The ACLU risks turning civil liberties from a philosophy into a mere fetish.
Pat Patterson - #13.1.1 - 2008-07-27 20:15 -
Actually I found Christopher sadly lacking in knowledge of the US. First in that the Consitution was plainly created to guarantee the right of the majority, "We the people..." and then goes on to refer to the common defense and the general welfare. It is not really a document that promotes the rights of minorities except toleration especially when those minority rights come at the expense of the majority. I mean it seems sometimes that most of the Fulbright Scholars that come to the United States get their information about American people from Oprah and their knowledge about the Constitution from Daily Kos. Secondly in this form of a republic the minority generally abides by elections and does not and is usually prevented from placing its own interests above the majority. And as a result does not engage or brag about the kinds of acts that puts its own interests above the 1st Amendment rights of others namely the Obama supporters. But if Christopher truly believes that then I don't expect to hear any whining if, God forbid, the CIA or more likely the FSB begins funding small minority parties in Germany so that they can hack into, deface and steal bandwith because they have "rights."
Christopher Paun - #188.8.131.52 - 2008-07-28 10:14 -
@ Pat: Your argument about the constitution protecting majority rights would be right if it had not been amended. But maybe you should read the first ten amendments, also known as the bill of rights. It is specifically about individual rights. And by the way: it grants those rights also to non-US citizens. I am not sure If I got your argument about the FSB funding a small minority party. But yes: I support civil liberties even if people use those liberties to do something I personally do not like.
SC - #184.108.40.206.1 - 2008-07-29 05:02 -
A bit of a quibble here: It certainly is not the case that non-citzens are granted rights equivalent to citizens under the US Constitution. Now, one day in the future the US Supreme Court may interpret the Constitution as it stands to mean this but at the moment it hasn't: Hamdan and other recent decisions did not go that far. In their relationship to the US Government, the US Constitution follows US citizens wherever they go and such is certainly not currently the case with non-citizens - among other things, location matters.
Christopher Paun - #13.1.2 - 2008-07-28 10:20 -
@ John: Yes you are right. I think I exaggerated a bit when I said that civil liberties do not have the support of the majority. Maybe I should have said “civil liberties presently do not have sufficient support of the majority.” In general I like the attitude in US of being skeptical of to much power for the government. But I think the state of emergency is overrated. I don’t want to be cynical, but even in 2001 more Americans died in car accidents than in terrorist attacks. 9-11 was terrible, no doubt, but I think the US should switch back form emergency to normal mode. As you say: "Now that 'stateless terrorism' appears to have reverted to a chronic problem, rather than an emergency, it is indeed appropriate to revisit all emergency measures." I agree.
John in Michigan, USA - #220.127.116.11 - 2008-07-28 14:30 -
"even in 2001 more Americans died in car accidents than in terrorist attacks." True, but not all deaths are equal. A car death with no one at fault is less disturbing than one with someone at fault...which is less disturbing than murder...which is less disturbing than (for example) rape-murder...and so on. Also, tactics matter, and yes, even culture matters. Serial killers are given more attention and resources than say a drug runner or mobster accused of the same number of murders. Why? There are a number of reasons, but surely a big one is that serial killers are seen as inheirantly more terrorizing than drug deals gone bad, or mob hits. So I think it was fair to treat 9-11 as both an act of war (albeit by a non-state actor) and an emergency of a qualitatively different nature than a busy weekend on the highway, even though statistically driving is much more dangerous than terrorism. "revisit emergency measures" Some of the 9-11 emergency measures have already been cancelled. Officially we never tortured anyone; but thanks to McCain and others, even 'enhanced interrogation', including waterboarding, is no longer practiced (as far as anyone can tell...which short of utopia is probably the best one can hope for). Also it is unlikely that we will do any more extraordinary renditions, absent another 9-11. There are a few other post-9-11 practices I would like to see ended or modified. But even if than happens, we will still have to struggle with the huge threat to civil liberties of the war on (some) drugs, which no-one wants to talk about right now...
Christopher Paun - #18.104.22.168.1 - 2008-07-28 14:42 -
Yes, indeed. Since the war on terror started, there is much less media attention for the war on drugs, although it continues. And by the way: one of those drug warriors was Bob Barr, who is now the candidate of the libertarian party. How could that have happened? With his position on drugs and gay marriage he is not really a libertarian, or what do you think?
John in Michigan, USA - #22.214.171.124.1.1 - 2008-07-28 15:48 -
John in Michigan, USA - #13.2 - 2008-07-28 14:35 -
Christopher, I am also interested in learning more about espionage vs. civil liberties in Europe. For example, my impression of France is, when it comes to national security and even commercial espionage, they are...how to put this...quite permissive. But maybe my impression is incorrect our out of date? How would you compare French limited on spying (internally or externally) to the US or Germany? Also, what limits does Germany place on its ability to conduct espionage outside of Europe? Is there an article I should read for this?
Christopher Paun - #13.2.1 - 2008-07-28 15:08 -
A good comparative overview is: [url=http://www.amazon.com/Whos-Watching-Spies-Establishing-Accountability/dp/1574888978/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217250312&sr=1-1]Hans Born, Loch K. Johnson, and Ian Leigh (2005): Who's Watching the Spies?: Establishing Intelligence Service Accountability[/url]
Christopher Paun - #13.2.2 - 2008-07-28 16:11 -
Thank you for that info on Bob Barr. My previous post to your question did not get through (awaiting modereation because of link). A good comperative overview in democratic control of intelligence services is: Hans Born, Loch K. Johnson, and Ian Leigh: Who's Watching the Spies?: Establishing Intelligence Service Accountability
Virginia Shanahan - #14 - 2008-07-27 17:56 -
With all due respect to the peoples of Europe but I could give rats behind what you think about our candidates. It is not the job of the U.S. President to please the world. It is the job of the U.S. President to help defend and protect the rights, liberties and freedom of the American people. The European nations are socialist societies. Their daily internal struggles continue to mount. Well, the U.S. is on the precipice of socialism and the people of this country best regain control now. The Power of Government Stops With Mehttp://conservativepolitics.today.com/2008/07/27/limited-government-made-easy/
Joerg - Atlantic Review - #14.1 - 2008-07-27 18:09 -
"I could give rats behind what you think about our candidates." Wow. Very interesting. Why do you read Atlantic Review and comment here? I am just curious... "The European nations are socialist societies." That's why we are not allowed to practice free speech and comment on US presidential candidates? What's your point?
Bill - #14.1.1 - 2008-07-30 14:46 -
The correct expression is "I could give a rat's ass..." followed by whatever it is you don't give a shit about. Virginia was just being ladylike while at the same time showing her ignorance about how US national politics and US foreign policy really works. Can you imagine a US presidential candidate saying to the peoples[sic] of Europe and the world "I could give a rat's ass about what you think of me."? Come to think about it, perhaps we've seen this attitude in US presidents past and present. Doesn't work very well for America and the people of the world, does it?
Virginia Shanahan - #15 - 2008-07-27 18:14 -
Oh certainly you are permitted to exercise free speech (unless it's considered hateful by someone and then they try to shut you down). Ain't America grand? Why? It's quite simple. Do the peoples of Germany - or any other nation- factor in what the world thinks of their candidate or do they vote their conscience based on whom they believe will do the best job leading their country? Certainly they decide on who will best lead their country. America should be doing the same. There is no reason for our presidential hopefuls to be campaigning in Germany - or any other foreign country for that matter. He is not running for president of the world. He is not even running for president of Germany. To date, the Germans are not permitted to vote in U.S. elections. So what is the actual purpose of Obama's trip there?
Joerg - Atlantic Review - #15.1 - 2008-07-27 18:30 -
To answer your question: Obama believes that his trip to Germany will bolster his foreign policy credentials. I am not sure, if giving a speech in front of a huge crowd indicates foreign policy expertise. Anyway, watch the video above about people's reactions. Moreover, I am sure you agree that the United States has a better chance to achieve many of its foreign policy goals if it has international partners. It has been easy to say to "No!" to George Bush's requests for help in Afghanistan and elsewhere, because of his many past mistakes. If Americans elect Obama, it will be much more difficult to refuse help, because we cannot blame Obama for Bush's mistakes and rhetoric etc. Does that answer your questions?
Virginia Shanahan - #16 - 2008-07-27 18:36 -
I did watch the video and I found the peoples reactions to be in line with what I imagined they would be. Yes, he did it to bolster his foreign policy experience, which is none. I agree this trip in no way achieves his goals. I believe the U.S. over reaches it's foreign policy. However, when the U.S. is correct on principle and policy it should be strong enough to not need foreign aide and should certainly not be requesting permission from global nations. By no means has Bush been a perfect President and certainly he has angered me on more than one occasion but he has been far from a failure and I do believe history will reflect that.
ADMIN - #17 - 2008-07-28 17:05 -
Please note that by default the comments in this blog are threaded rather than linear, i.e. some of the latest comments and responses to comments are not at the bottom, but in the middle. At the top of the comments section you have the option to change the view from threaded to linear, which enable you to see the latest comments at the end of the thread.
Google the Site